Law case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law case study - Essay ExampleFor a claim of negligence to succeed, the claimant must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of criminal maintenance, and that the defendant was in breach of that duty. If a breach occurred or not is to a greater extent a question of actual fact which is to be established on the basis of the evidence. However, the standard of care (expected) is a matter of law. In English law, the familiar principle is that the standard of care is absolutely objective. The defendants actions or lack of actions are measured against the standard established by society for the delegate performed. In practice, the objectivity of the standard of care means, if a person purports to have a certain skill, or initiates endeavors which imply his possession of a specific skill, thence he must display a level of competence associated with that skill. When we view the case of Wells v. Cooper 1958 DIY home repairs must meet the standard of a reasonably competent tradesman. On a whole the law of negligence is focused on who will pay the cost for the loss or damage. Generally, the motive of the defendant is irrelevant to the determination whether he breached the duty of care. We will first look at the Housing Act, 1966 s 39 which empowers the council to make loans for the acquisition of houses. To requite the necessary requirements in qualifying the borrower as a bone fide recipient and all the property as fit, the council must perform (via its agent or representative), an command of the dwelling on the basis of two pertinent criteria (1) establishing the actual value and (2) that the dwelling will provide sufficient security for the loan.... as a dissolvent of the report by the Councils valuer, as to the actual value of an existing houseand thatis so situated as to be readily cut-rate saleable, in the event of a sale by the Council becoming necessary, due to default by the borrower (Ward). In an accompanying opinion in this case, Castell J., 1985 I .R. 29 at p 52 held that, In pass of the facts to which I have referred it seems to me that there was a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighborhood between the plaintiff and the council such as that in probable contemplation of the council carelessness on their part in carrying out of the valuation of the bungalow the plaintiff (in view of his knowledge that they were going to value the premises and his genuinely limited means), would himself employ a professional person to examine it and so they should have known that if the valuation was carelessly done it might not get around defects in the premises and as a result the plaintiff might suffer loss or damage. So it seems to me that a prima facie duty of care existed and there is nothing in the dealing between the two parties which should restrict or limit that duty on any way. In particular no warning against reliance on the proposed valuation was given (Costello 1985) Also in Siney v. Corporation of Dublin 1980 IR400, OHiggins, CJ states at p.414, In this case it is sufficient to say that numerous of these recent decisions recognize a possible liability where the exercise of statutory powers in a negligent manner results in3injury to